Markets, marketism … what do we say is good or bad?

DaveDarby

and I don't think neoliberalism is actually an ideology. I think it's a project for 'enriching capital' as deepseek said.

asimong

DaveDarby Wikipedia clearly disagrees: the consensus opposes what you say … "Neoliberalism[1] is a political and economic ideology that advocates for free-market capitalism, which became dominant in policy-making from the late 20th century onward."

DaveDarby

and again, a commons town / commons world would ideally have mutual credit as the means of exchange, with nothing to accumulate (credit and debit limits prevent it), and so competition would remain at the small-scale, on quality - but not the kind of competition that would create giant business and put small ones out of business. quality is subjective. I prefer one brewery (not saying which one). others prefer different ones.

asimong

Well, I'd say something is missing here. To clarify, I am certainly not calling you a "marketist", Dave! You support the same kind of markets that I see as good and helpful as they are, just as I have already make clear. To understand what market fundamentalism is, I start from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism — this is not, per se, about who controls things, it's about one feature of political economics: that (individual) people, free to choose what to buy with their fiat currency in their own self-interest, will provide the "invisible hand" that leads to prosperity for all. Which, I suggest, makes no sense.

Now, yes, of course, this is then captured by neo-liberalist capitalism so that we get wealth extraction etc. etc., but to me this seems distinct from the idea of market fundamentalism (though easily conflated).

What I see happening in farmers markets, and the like, is that people are buying and selling stuff not solely on the basis of price, but including ethics, values, personal relationship, local economy, etc. And this is clearly not market fundamentalism.

I'm saying that having markets, by itself, is neither good nor bad. I'm also saying that the more you restrict markets to price as the only factor in decisions, the more I see it as open to capture by capitalist players.

There is another thread of potential critique of markets, which is who controls the marketplace? I see this even in the local, small-scale food markets that I see and sometimes participate in here. On a small scale, the marketplace is facilitated by some software for which the person running the market has to rent. Extraction happens in a different way. Scale this up and you can see the similarity with Varoufakis's techno-feudalism. And recall the history of marketplaces … you had to get the monarch's permission to hold markets. Okay, that is fortunately not there (is it?) for farmers markets, but there are vulnerabilities here. And, having said that, do we really believe that unregulated marketplaces are workably good? I assume not; but then, what features of markets are essential to their being a force for good (and, by the by, aligned with Commons interests); or what precautions need to be put in place to ensure that marketplaces are not captured or misused?

I come back to maintaining my position that "markets" seen broadly are neither good nor bad, but that "marketism" or "market fundamentalism" is a real problem which we have to guard against, along with guarding against markets, or marketplaces, even if local, being used as a means of extraction or exclusion.

asimong

DaveDarby Indeed, and as you may be able to see, I'm not putting " “markets” alongside “state,” “capital,” and “commons” as alternative loci of power". It's a different kind of issue. Markets are a mechanism that can be used well, provided choices are not made exclusively on the basis of fiat currency price, and badly, if regulated badly by the state, or captured by capital as in techno-feudalism.

asimong

And, as we seem to agree that a "market" is just a mechanism, not inherently good or bad, can we also agree that "capital" is just a concept, not inherently good or bad, and that "the state", understood as the means of collective self-governance or self-regulation, is also a mechanism, not inherently good or bad?

I'm inviting us to make much clearer distinctions between mechanisms / practices on the one hand, and power / control on the other hand.

I am sure we share the view that we do not want a "ruling elite" (or monarch) at a nation-state level (even if they are Plato's philosopher kings) to be imposing decisions on us common people; nor do we want power (and other resources) concentrated in the hands of the few corporate capitalists. I'm saying (and I guess you would broadly agree) that it is concentration of (particularly unaccountable) power that is the problem here, and that Commons thinking wants first and foremost to put power and control back in the hands of people, locally, and only then federated.

DaveDarby

When you say that we support the same 'kind of markets' - what kind of market would you get a laptop from? or do you have another way of getting one?
The problem really isn't markets, it's state and corporate corruption of them. People can use whatever criteria they like in a free market - price, style, size, quality, ethics, personal relationship, whatever.
The market fundamentalism wikipedia page says that market fundamentalists believe in 'free-market capitalism', and I think that's where our disagreement lies. Since states chartered the British and Dutch East India companies in 1600 and 1602, capitalist markets have never been 'free'. It's almost always about the state intervening in the market on behalf of corporations (why keep a dog and bark yourself? see above for how), although sometimes corporations can do it alone. For example, I used to work in Romania, and almost every cafe / restaurant / shop in the country had a large, glass-fronted fridge. Turns out that after the iron curtain fell, coca-cola moved in and provided them all for free, with the proviso that they could only sell coca-cola products. Killed the romanian soft drinks industry overnight.
In capitalism, corporations and the state are a united front that ensure markets are not free, but skewed towards corps. In a commons world, that wouldn't be possible.
Happy to say that neoliberalism is an ideology, but that their ideology is ultimately wealth concentration - neoliberals rail against state intervention when it comes to banking regulation or welfare, but not when it's transferring taxpayers money to weapons manufacturers or bailing out banks. I'd say that's hypocrisy in the extreme.
IMO, people 'free to choose what to buy with their fiat currency (or preferably mutual credit within a global credit commons) in their own self-interest' PLUS commons for essential infrastructure, PLUS commons governance / partner state WILL mean prosperity for all (but not within capitalism and liberal 'democracy').
And yes, the marketPLACE can and should be commoned.
I think we've already agreed on the state, haven't we? that a partner / commons state based ultimately on assemblies is absolutely not the same as corruptible liberal 'democracy' that has been captured by capital in the west, and that the massively concentrated capital of capitalism is not the same as an individual's capital (financial, physical, cultural, social), invested in their local commons.
And yes, we absolutely agree on the evils of concentrated power, and commons as the alternative.

asimong

IMO, people 'free to choose what to buy with their fiat currency (or preferably mutual credit within a global credit commons) in their own self-interest' PLUS commons for essential infrastructure, PLUS commons governance / partner state WILL mean prosperity for all (but not within capitalism and liberal 'democracy').

Yeah, but what you've added here completely changes what I was saying.

The point that bears repeating is that the "market", like the "commons" actually, (and not unlike "the state" or "capital") needs certain characteristics or features or governance or whatever in order to function for the good.

DaveDarby

Corporate capitalism has its own 'partner state' - liberal democracy: well and truly bought and paid for.
What I'd like to see (and I'll be writing about on the substack over the coming weeks / months) is:

governance: a commons partner state, rooted in communities / assemblies and federated to any scale - city / region / national / global.
essential infrastructure: (houses, land, energy, water, care, transport infrastructure - owned by communities in perpetuity / never sold again) - pure commons / Ostrom / use-credit obligations etc.
financial infrastructure: credit clearing, spawning local mutual credit, federated to global credit commons.
rest of the economy: market (how else would you get your laptop / food / clothes?). Commons marketplaces - physical and/or online. The three aspects of society above would obviously have their own governance structures, as would marketplaces - but credit commons would prevent wealth accumulation, there would be no market for essential infrastructure, and commons governance overall would support commons, and prevent / sanction fraud, theft or violence generally in society. That kind of market would be free, and wouldn't need any special features / governance that I can think of. Just go and get your carrots and your boots from wherever you like, knowing that your means of exchange isn't going to end up in the Cayman Islands.
I won't see that in my lifetime, but I'd like to see some shoots - can already in fact.

mrauchs

Statism sounds good to me, but I prefer "market fundamentalism" to "marketism" because it's more descriptive.

"Capitalism" in my opinion is too narrow and reductive. There's many alternative modes of economic organisation besides capitalism that are antithetical to the Commons.

DaveDarby

This thread is a debate about a couple of points in the principles we're drawing up for the knowledge base.
Those principles will involve negotiation.

I'm happy to concede on a few things, and I'll put my position on others in future blog articles, with explanations and sources.

I'll concede about having market fundamentalism in the principles, as long as we make it clear that states and corporations are not commons, and that markets per se are not a problem for commons. Mutual credit schemes are markets, but governed so that no members dominate, and wealth doesn’t accumulate. We may not have any disagreement about that at all. But there were related disagreements with Lowimpact. For example, the 'sharing economy', which is completely extractive (eg uber and airbnb – corporate platforms). Same with corporate car share platforms. Not commons (but car sharing is good, and can easily be done locally, where it's needed, via commons). And nationalisation isn't commons either. But we're all Ostrom fans, so we’re probably on the same page with the above. I don’t think there'll be an issue with market fundamentalists – they’ll be against commons anyway, and so if they're on the site at all, it will be to cause problems, and they can be removed.

Regulation of markets within capitalism – sure. But, you can’t effectively regulate markets so that corporations don’t dominate them, via states that have been captured by corporations. That's obvious if you think about it. Now, for those who don’t think that states have been captured, that’s another debate. But if it is the case (and I think we probably all believe that it is), then the sum total of regulations via captured states will tend to benefit corporations and harm small businesses, co-ops, community orgs and sole traders. I can give you a lot of examples - including lots of real world examples involving small businesses associated with Lowimpact – regulations that are very difficult for small businesses to comply with, and take a larger proportion of their income, but easy for large corps to comply with. With governance commons via a partner state, plus a mutual credit exchange system, we won’t have that problem. For example, regulation changes to allow the sale of mutuals and building societies to the banking sector – and now we’ve lost most of them (in the UK and the states). A commons partner state wouldn’t have done that. But markets per se are not a problem for the commons - it’s markets dominated by corps and regulated by captured states that are the problem.

As I said, I can give examples, more explanation and sources in future blog articles, and we can debate in the comments if necessary.

asimong

DaveDarby

DaveDarby I'll concede about having market fundamentalism in the principles, as long as we make it clear that states and corporations are not commons, and that markets per se are not a problem for commons

Agreed: as I am also pointing out, markets are a mechanism. The issue is what is assumed to come along as a given with markets, and I'm pointing out that, if not examined carefully, one may be smuggling in "rational consumers"

DaveDarby For example, the 'sharing economy', which is completely extractive (eg uber and airbnb – corporate platforms).

Yes, the ones mentioned are indeed extractive corporates. But what about ShareBnB? Is that just as extractive, simply by being part of the "Sharing" economy? Thus, I'd hold off "completely". As with so many things, it's not black and white.

DaveDarby But, you can’t effectively regulate markets so that corporations don’t dominate them, via states that have been captured by corporations. That's obvious if you think about it.

"You"? I have difficulty with the ambiguity here. For sure, in a so-called democratic state where corporate interests have captured it, of course "we" (the commoners) can't regulate them effectively, because "we" can't make enforceable laws in the ways that states with police and armies can. But "we" can regulate the markets or market-like structures that we create, if the marketplace is governed as or like a commons. Again, I'm not a Commons fundamentalist, so if a structure looks like a commons, and quacks like a commons, I'm content to include it even if it's not called "Commons" and doesn't cite Ostrom.
Naturally, I'm happy with your examples, that's not at issue. The issue is, what are our shared boundary conditions? Where do we draw the line(s)?
This is where I see the tension. I see you, @DaveDarby as wanting Fundamentalist lines. I don't. Fundamentalist lines can be good for flag-waving, to bring in people initially, and to bring in "the faithful". It's also good to give the faithful a tight sense of belonging, particularly when they have been feeling lost and alone out there in the big wide world. But if the Fundamentalism continues, I see it as likely to end in argument and fragmentation, nit-picking over what is white and what is black. I don't want that. I want a coalition, an assembly, of all those working for the good, with mutual recognition and valuing. I want people to be in dialogue about what they are doing and why. We can be holding up the "Commons" line, and that's good. Let's give people a safe and trustworthy home here. Then, let's be reaching out, not just to convert people to our view of the Commons, but to work with people for the common good.

DaveDarby

You mean Fairbnb? no, that's not extractive. it's a co-op. I meant the sharing economy as it was announced by the arrival of uber and airbnb. there are aspects of the sharing economy (and the wider economy) that are not extractive.

I shouldn't have said 'you' or 'we'. What I meant was that states captured by corporates can't effectively regulate corporates.

I don't want a fundamentalist line. Look at the topics in the economy & finance section. A range of non-corporate, non-state structures, and I have no problems with small businesses. In a commons world, with mutual credit exchange, they wouldn't be able to grow into giant corporations (which I do have a problem with). Commons is a huge coalition of great people doing great things. But people working in ESG for Unilever probably believe that they're working 'for the common good'. Good for them, but as you've agreed that 'as long as we make it clear that states and corporations are not commons, and markets per se are not a problem for commons' I assume you'll be with me in telling them that there's no place for corporate greenwashing on GtC.

asimong

DaveDarby no place for corporate greenwashing on GtC.

Definitely. No greenwashing. Or Commonswashing. Or hiding extractive interests under some guise. Couldn't agree more!

katjad

DaveDarby markets per se are not a problem

They can become a problem, I believe, if market logic becomes the dominant mindset by which things, or also people, are evaluated. (Market logic = attaching an exchange value to things, including labour, land, people, nature, art)

I believe markets, even farmers markets, are not "of the commons", insofar as there's usually a high degree of trust and knowledge between the members of a commons, so there's not a need to attach monetary value to anything. – If I think of traditional commons like those managed by the English peasants, they just rotated the fields among each other, didn't they? (there must have been a variety of practices). Or the cows being made to graze together in the Swiss mountains, there is no money exchange there? I imagine you could have a membership fee to be part of a commons. But not usually a market within the commons.

I wonder if it might not even be a key characteristic of a commons that it can happen without money.
In a gift economy, you do some kind of accounting in your head, and in a LETS scheme you have explicit accounting. So, there's a gradual move towards attaching an 'exchange value' to goods or services. But as these communities are small and there is still an element of trust, it is really more to keep track.

If you start to directly compare things to each other ~ attaching a value that you can measure in units of accounts – something changes profoundly. As the number of participants grows, it will eventually drive competition of the kind where people have to become more productive to keep up, and might eventually feel the need to cut corners.

Competition is good if it's for quality; if I have the ambition to brew the best beer, to take an example of yours. But if my ambition is to beat my competitor on profit, that changes things. I think it would be perfectly possible to have just one brewery in a village and still have good beer, as usually people do want to create a good product. They will want to drink their own beer I guess! They could make a variety of different beers.

Our society is so suffused with market logic that we take it for natural or necessary. And yeah, for your laptop it might be necessary. But not for most things people do, and the things that are truly valuable in life.

To answer the originai question, I think 'marketism' is a good term, and I would equate that with an excess of market logic.

katjad

katjad It's interesting than to think of a "money commons" in those terms. I guess in a money commons, money does not become a commodity. You create money as an accounting mechanism, but what you use that money for is not itself of the commons, perhaps.

DaveDarby

katjad
I agree, that some things should not be on the market - for example land, housing, energy/water/care/transport infrastructure etc. plus money.

although housing commons (etc.) would still have customers / tenants, who pay rent / pay for electricity etc. but the infrastructure isn't bought and sold, as it is now.

it's a fascinating subject, and no-one has the answers yet I don't think. Things will develop as commons grows. I don't see why there's any need to cut corners or keep up in a mutual credit network though. it's just a way of accounting for who's done what for whom, and a way to get the things you need from your own work (there will need to be an inbuilt welfare system somehow, linked to a care commons/friendly society).

if we don't do it that way, by attaching some sort of value to things, then we're back to: how do we get laptops? (and actually I think it's a lot more than that - phones, clothes, cars, bicycles, furniture, electrical goods, food, books - a lot). maybe there will be a better way in time, and maybe mutual credit is a stepping stone to that?

would you see farmers markets as 'of the commons' if they operated within a town mutual credit network?

what would profit look like, if there was no 'money' to accumulate?

I don't know the answers to these things, but I guess we can move in the right direction (commons! 🙂)

katjad

DaveDarby A fascinating subject, and no-one has the answers, I agree! I do believe a mutual credit network instead of fiat money would change things towards something more commons like, including the farmers markets – and they are already a good thing, of course.

There could still be profit, but you would then spend it again, or pool it with other people to invest it into something, or lend it to somebody. Just not accumulate it endliessly, that's the main thing 🙂

« Previous Page